Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Captain...]

How else do buildings that size collapse? Gravity is a vertical force. When you have thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete falling to the earth, it doesn't float to the left and right like a feather, it falls straight down and takes everything with it.

You mean like this one:

Y

Or

Or the ones foxy boxing posted, where part of it just came away from the side of the building.

I would expect a building to collapse to one side and in an uneven manner, except for a controlled explosion.

I would expect one part to weaken and and give way, not for it to give way in a uniformed way.

Of course I am no expert, but every time I see it, I can't help be reminded of a controlled demolition, because it looks exactly like that.

[Rincewind]

We are not seeing from the 'controlled callapse' side what and how the other side is collapsing. One without the other makes the puzzle incomplete.

I'd also like to know how they knew the building would withstand a 767 (or whatever it was) hitting it. They can only guess. Maybe they were wrong? Maybe the designers lied?

" 'ere mate wanna buy some hair restorer, it really does the trick, to you 20 quid, can't say fairer that, my bruvver will vouch for it won't you Rodney?'

Has an airliner ever hit a skyscraper before this one? If not then how it falls is the first time and cannot coompared to a previous airliner hitting skyscraper incident.

The conspiracy theoriists base their entire case on 'It looks like a controlled explosion'

[Captain...]

We are not seeing from the 'controlled callapse' side what and how the other side is collapsing. One without the other makes the puzzle incomplete.

I'd also like to know how they knew the building would withstand a 767 (or whatever it was) hitting it. They can only guess. Maybe they were wrong? Maybe the designers lied?

" 'ere mate wanna buy some hair restorer, it really does the trick, to you 20 quid, can't say fairer that, my bruvver will vouch for it won't you Rodney?'

Has an airliner ever hit a skyscraper before this one? If not then how it falls is the first time and cannot coompared to a previous airliner hitting skyscraper incident.

The conspiracy theoriists base their entire case on 'It looks like a controlled explosion'

Well, it does look like controlled explosion, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just understand why people look at it and go, that looks like a controlled explosion.

To be fair it did withstand the impact of the 767, but the fire and everything else on the twin towers caused the top layer to collapse, and that then put a load of pressure on the other layers and they all went.

Not disputing that, it doesn't look like a controlled explosion to me, the WTC 7 one does.

Just saying, not got the time the energy or inclination to read through all the guff on it, and not trying to catch anyone out, I'm just saying it really does look like a controlled explosion and I can understand why people are questioning.

[Rincewind]

I can see why too but a chocolate gateau is not a chocolate gateau without the chocolate.

????

I know what I mean.

[Carl the Llama]

Or the ones foxy boxing posted, where part of it just came away from the side of the building.

I would expect a building to collapse to one side and in an uneven manner, except for a controlled explosion.

I would expect one part to weaken and and give way, not for it to give way in a uniformed way.

Of course I am no expert, but every time I see it, I can't help be reminded of a controlled demolition, because it looks exactly like that.

1. It's BoxingFoxes, but no biggy.

2. The important point of that vid I posted isn't how much of the building fell but the fact that when the top floor of that section collapsed, it fell downwards taking every floor below it down too. Almost exactly like a miniature 9/11. Watch it again, all the way until the smoke clears and you'll see what I'm talking about. Yes, some bits of rubble are projected off to the side, but I invite you to watch the twins collapsing and tell me that the same didn't happen there too. W/r to the falling sideways thing, where was the suddenly buckled & disconnected, free falling mass supposed to get sideways acceleration from?

3. You do realise you're comparing lopsided buildings with fire-damaged buildings?

[Webbo]

I can see why too but a chocolate gateau is not a chocolate gateau without the chocolate.

????

I know what I mean.

I'm glad you do, frankly, I'm never quite sure.

[MooseBreath]

You mean like this one:

Y

Or

Or the ones foxy boxing posted, where part of it just came away from the side of the building.

I would expect a building to collapse to one side and in an uneven manner, except for a controlled explosion.

I would expect one part to weaken and and give way, not for it to give way in a uniformed way.

Of course I am no expert, but every time I see it, I can't help be reminded of a controlled demolition, because it looks exactly like that.

These are both much smaller and lighter buildings than WTC7 and also the reason why they collapsed and therefore the style of collapse is totally different. Both of these look like failed foundations probably caused by some kind of subsidence. What you see there is the substructure sinking into the ground on one side while the superstructure remains structurally solid. This is why they are able to fall to the side. At WTC7, the superstructure failed, causing the floors to crash into each other leading to an almost vertical collapse. You can see that in foxy boxer's first video, where the top floors collapse onto the floors below and clearly cause them significant damage. Now imagine you've got many more floors of a much larger and heavier building collapsing, and personally I think it is quite easy to visualise that with that kind of weight and that kind of damage the only way it is falling is more or less straight down.

[Rincewind]

You should stick to explaining conspiracy theories Moose.

[Zingari]

These are both much smaller and lighter buildings than WTC7 and also the reason why they collapsed and therefore the style of collapse is totally different. Both of these look like failed foundations probably caused by some kind of subsidence. What you see there is the substructure sinking into the ground on one side while the superstructure remains structurally solid. This is why they are able to fall to the side. At WTC7, the superstructure failed, causing the floors to crash into each other leading to an almost vertical collapse. You can see that in foxy boxer's first video, where the top floors collapse onto the floors below and clearly cause them significant damage. Now imagine you've got many more floors of a much larger and heavier building collapsing, and personally I think it is quite easy to visualise that with that kind of weight and that kind of damage the only way it is falling is more or less straight down.

That's a big unexplained problem though and just saying , " it failed " as though it's an everyday occurrence doesn't explain how it failed.

Superstructures do not just "fail" as though they never existed allowing free fall symmetric collapse because even weakened failing superstructures would offer some resistance .

There would need to be thousands of joints failing simultaneously on each floor and sequentially through the floors to allow a 47 story steel framed structure to fall in this way .

You also say that the floors are crashing into each other , but this cannot be the case because of the rate of collapse .

Each floor in the collapse would need time to fail from the force from above but the rate of descent gives no indication of this

The whole building falls down as though the floors below are offering little or no resistance to the floors above.

Take a good look . the building looks like it's sliding into an open pit

Damn , I've been suckered in again

Anyway , however the buildings came down , one thing is certain

We are going up , i said , we are going up :scarf:

We are going up , i said , we are going up :scarf:

[MooseBreath]

That's a big unexplained problem though and just saying , " it failed " as though it's an everyday occurrence doesn't explain how it failed.

Superstructures do not just "fail" as though they never existed allowing free fall symmetric collapse because even weakened failing superstructures would offer some resistance .

There would need to be thousands of joints failing simultaneously on each floor and sequentially through the floors to allow a 47 story steel framed structure to fall in this way .

You also say that the floors are crashing into each other , but this cannot be the case because of the rate of collapse .

Each floor in the collapse would need time to fail from the force from above but the rate of descent gives no indication of this

The whole building falls down as though the floors below are offering little or no resistance to the floors above.

Take a good look . the building looks like it's sliding into an open pit

Damn , I've been suckered in again

Anyway , however the buildings came down , one thing is certain

We are going up , i said , we are going up :scarf:

We are going up , i said , we are going up :scarf:

In any video I have seen, you cannot see much of the bottom part of the building where the collapse is taking place. You can see the top part of the building, which is the huge weight which is forcing the vertical collapse below it.

It does not take thousands of failures, only really one major failure and this will then set off other major failures and then the building will collapse. A building like that doesn't have "thousands" of heavy load bearing members, it just has a few, and if one of them fails badly, they are all likely to fail.

It looks like a controlled demolition because controlled demolitions work in a similar way. You take out the major load bearing members and the building collapses under its own weight. The same thing happened here, the only difference is that the failures were caused by fire and not an intentional explosion.

[Rincewind]

Maybe the building was designed so as if it was ever damaged by fire/airliner or fire it would collapse in a certain way saving the time spent on hiring somebody to calculate the exact places to place explosives to do a controlled explosion when working out that the building was beyond repair and it would be safer for the public if they carried out a controlled explosion.

Simple if you think about it.

[Zingari]

In any video I have seen, you cannot see much of the bottom part of the building where the collapse is taking place. You can see the top part of the building, which is the huge weight which is forcing the vertical collapse below it.

It does not take thousands of failures, only really one major failure and this will then set off other major failures and then the building will collapse. A building like that doesn't have "thousands" of heavy load bearing members, it just has a few, and if one of them fails badly, they are all likely to fail.

It looks like a controlled demolition because controlled demolitions work in a similar way. You take out the major load bearing members and the building collapses under its own weight. The same thing happened here, the only difference is that the failures were caused by fire and not an intentional explosion.

OK I'll let Dave Chandler try to explain why we should at least be suspicious of the collapse even if we're not convinced

[Rincewind]

One for zingari to stir up again.

 

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/12/an-act-of-war-cia-leak-gives.html?m=1

[danny.]

One for zingari to stir up again.

 

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/12/an-act-of-war-cia-leak-gives.html?m=1

 

If you even read that you wear a tin foil hat and are crazy etc. what major media outlets (BBC. ITV, Fox news etc.) say is always the truth etc. disrespectful to the victims etc.

[Rincewind]

Saw it on Facebook. Never read much of it. Just put it up for Zing. it's his kind of thing. started to watch the video. Reminds me of the one in Reginald Perin ho was preparing for mass destruction of the world. As soon as he started to go on about stockpiling guns I switched off.

[Zingari]

One for zingari to stir up again.

 

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/12/an-act-of-war-cia-leak-gives.html?m=1

Regarding the WTC building collapses,my opinion hasn't changed and isn't likely to .   

I dont know who did it, why they did it or how they did it for sure,  but it wasn't the plane impacts and fire alone that brought those buildings  down .

[OzFox]

but it wasn't the plane impacts and fire alone that brought those buildings down .

Yes it was.

It says so in the "9/11 Commission Report". Picked up my copy today

Edit: Also picked up a book on Hangar 17. It's where they've been storing wreckage and artifacts from the WTC, destined for the memorial museum that opens soon at the site. Some interesting stuff in there

http://blogs.wsj.com/photojournal/2010/11/22/911-artifacts-at-jfk-airport/

[Zingari]

Yes it was.

It says so in the "9/11 Commission Report". Picked up my copy today

Edit: Also picked up a book on Hangar 17. It's where they've been storing wreckage and artifacts from the WTC, destined for the memorial museum that opens soon at the site. Some interesting stuff in there

http://blogs.wsj.com/photojournal/2010/11/22/911-artifacts-at-jfk-airport/

[Rincewind]

Sometimes things happen which can only happen in extraordarnary circumstances and unlikely to happen again.

[Zingari]

Sometimes things happen which can only happen in extraordarnary circumstances and unlikely to happen again.

I've sort of given up bothering about it now Ken old mate , because to be quite honest i'm getting too old to care anymore and i'm not going to change anyones mind if they are set in the belief that it all happened just as we've been told but personally, i'll just quietly continue to disbelieve it .

 

When the day arrives that demolition companies stop using explosives , cutter charges etc etc to bring down steel framed buildings and start doing it just by setting them alight using ordinary fires , then i'll believe it's possible .

 I've not worked in demolition , but  for 20  years i worked with steel , welding and fabricating,  and i know how it behaves with heat,  and ordinary fire wouldn't cause it to totally collapse into itself.  It might buckle and bend and even crack and break  some joints , but that's a totally different effect and would be much more random and asymmetrical . you might see bits falling off the side  , or even  floors collapsing , but unevenly,  not straight down 

 

Demolition  of buildings and making them totally collapse symetrically at a rapid rate   into a neat pile is a highly sophisticated and skilled art . it just doesn't happen by chance in the same way that in reality a monkey wont sit at a typewriter and write a shakespeare play . 

Anyone  is free to believe in the "possibility" of these things occuring , but I choose not to given that alternative explanations are readily available and easily demonstrable 

The collapse of WTC 7 looks exactly like a planned demolition , not because of some strange unrepeatable collaboration of effects  but because in all probability that is what it was .

 

but thats me done on the subject for now  :xmassmile:

[Strokes]

Regarding the WTC building collapses,my opinion hasn't changed and isn't likely to .

I dont know who did it, why they did it or how they did it for sure, but it wasn't the plane impacts and fire alone that brought those buildings down .

I agree, its clear from the way they fell that it couldn't be anything other than planted explosives that bought them down. I don't know who was responsible, but I can hazzard a guess.

[danny.]

Unfortunately, while people are brainwashed that the mainstream media doesn't broadcast complete lies, people in power will just do what they want, plant a cover story and get away with it—anyone that thinks, or dares to speak out otherwise, is ridiculed and branded a tin-foil-hat-wearing-looney.

[MrSpaM]

[The God Emperor]

I cant comment on the mechanics on wether the impact could have caused the building to collapse in this way. But I just cant see what the US government had to gain from blowing up to WTC. they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan with no formal declaration of war anyway so I doubt they would go to these extreme lengths to get the go ahead from the UN if they where just going to attack whoever they wanted anyway.

on top of that I dont give the ruling classes that much credit and doubt they could pull something like this off without a hitch. no offence to people like zing who seems a clever chap but I think alot of this conspiracy stuff is like the comfort of religion. they like to feel the powers that be control everything and keep it all in order, the reality that the world is chaotic and rudderless is alot less comforting.

[Zingari]

I cant comment on the mechanics on wether the impact could have caused the building to collapse in this way. But I just cant see what the US government had to gain from blowing up to WTC. they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan with no formal declaration of war anyway so I doubt they would go to these extreme lengths to get the go ahead from the UN if they where just going to attack whoever they wanted anyway.

on top of that I dont give the ruling classes that much credit and doubt they could pull something like this off without a hitch. no offence to people like zing who seems a clever chap but I think alot of this conspiracy stuff is like the comfort of religion. they like to feel the powers that be control everything and keep it all in order, the reality that the world is chaotic and rudderless is alot less comforting.

I don't really want to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole again because there really are too many misleading directions to go. But regarding what the warmongers gained out of the attack was "A New Pearl Harbour" effect . 

This galvanised public opinion to go to war in the same way as the original. The vast majority of the population are always against war , but the effect of being ( or believing to be ) under direct threat makes it much easier to motivate the masses and pass declarations of war and also get the government to spend more on the military. Its quite simple actually.

 

The Project for the New American Century(PNAC)  lamented that "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force ( the US )the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

The 911 attacks,if they are indeed a surprise attack,  have had the effect of being the very event that PNAC had spoken  about to increase the speed at which the US would be able to gain more power with the will of the people.

 

I'm not saying that what happened was planned by the US,   but  that it was very very convenient for the hawks in government to get what they wanted after the attacks . I doubt if the masses would have been so easy to persuade and keep on board  if 911 hadn't happened.

 

As for the world being "chaotic and rudderless" , I really really doubt that .